Nothing to see here

[MThurston]

Thread highjacked.

[Osuniev]

So as a 5 level Fighter and 4 level rogue can I do the following.

Hide the turn before.

On my next turn fire from stealth, then steady aim for my two advantage attacks and then hide again as a bonus action.

This seems OP if it works that way.

Remember Sneak Attack is only once per turn anyway. And of course, in order to hide without moving, you need to have some form of obscurement such as bushes so it's situational (you cannot be behind a wall or a rock since you need to be able to shoot and hide from the same place without moving).

Actually nevermind, Steady Aim costs your bonus action so you cannot Hide and Steady Aim the same turn.

[Chaos Jackal]

So as a 5 level Fighter and 4 level rogue can I do the following.

Hide the turn before.

On my next turn fire from stealth, then steady aim for my two advantage attacks and then hide again as a bonus action.

This seems OP if it works that way.

Steady Aim is in itself a bonus action, so you can't use it and Hide as a bonus action in the same turn. It also gives you advantage to your next attack roll, not all attacks you make in the turn.

[MThurston]

Remember Sneak Attack is only once per turn anyway. And of course, in order to hide without moving, you need to have some form of obscurement such as bushes so it's situational (you cannot be behind a wall or a rock since you need to be able to shoot and hide from the same place without moving).

I just remembered that steady aim is a bonus action so you can not hide the turn you use it to attack.

[MThurston]

Steady Aim is in itself a bonus action, so you can't use it and Hide as a bonus action in the same turn. It also gives you advantage to your next attack roll, not all attacks you make in the turn.

Yes but hidden would give you advantage and then a steady aim would also.

Just wondering if the second Attack from fighter can be interrupted by a bonus action or is lost.

[Psyren]

Just wondering if the second Attack from fighter can be interrupted by a bonus action or is lost.

A bonus action can occur at any point in your turn, including between the Extra Attacks of your Attack Action. However you still (generally) only get one.

So if you start your turn Hidden, you could take the Attack action to hit with advantage, Cunning Action to Hide again (provided you are able to hide) or bonus action to Steady Aim, and then take your second attack to hit with advantage a second time.

With that said, as mentioned above, you'll only get sneak attack once on that turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A bonus action can occur at any point in your turn, including between the Extra Attacks of your Attack Action.

Point of order--this is a contested topic. Ask your DM before assuming either way.

(Personally, I don't care, but I can see (and have seen) the arguments in both directions).

[ad_hoc]

Point of order--this is a contested topic. Ask your DM before assuming either way.

(Personally, I don't care, but I can see (and have seen) the arguments in both directions).

Yeah.

Actions are discrete events that start and end within the parameters set by the action.

Things can only happen between the start and end of actions if explicitly stated that they can do so. (Ready action occurs after the trigger and cannot be 'when someone starts casting a spell' it is always 'after someone casts a spell').

I feel like if movement wasn't allowed between attacks not as many people would argue for bonus actions between attacks.

Though, personally unless it's an attempt at blatant abuse like the Ready 'at the beginning of casting' example I don't usually care if someone wants to use a bonus action during an action.

[elyktsorb]

can't speak for fighter but why would a rogue care about this?

[Man_Over_Game]

Steady Aim is in itself a bonus action, so you can't use it and Hide as a bonus action in the same turn. It also gives you advantage to your next attack roll, not all attacks you make in the turn.

I'd prefer to just make Steady Aim cost all of your movement that round.

That makes a lot more sense to me than your Bonus Action. Locking content behind a BA results in adding limitations to player options as the game expands, since it's a resource you can't ever get more than one back per turn. You see the same problem with the Ranger, who's unable to use his spells, dual-wielding, and some subclass features in the same build.

[Psyren]

I definitely don't see how else to interpret "you choose when to take a bonus action on your turn" but I'll concede that there could be table variation.

Still, given that "between attacks" is going to come up primarily for martial or multiclass martial builds, I'm perfectly okay with them getting a minor buff like this.


can't speak for fighter but why would a rogue care about this?

I imagine it's because if the first attack with advantage somehow misses (unlikely but possible) then the second one will still have advantage and thus trigger SA too.

[The_Jette]

Though, personally unless it's an attempt at blatant abuse like the Ready 'at the beginning of casting' example I don't usually care if someone wants to use a bonus action during an action.

How is this blatant abuse? It seems like a pretty solid way for a mundane combatant to lock down an enemy spellcaster. It's also a tactic that used to be pretty commonly used in earlier editions, and was encouraged. Heck, it was pointed out as something that could be done in the 3rd/3.5e PHB. So, I don't see why you would have an issue with it. It ends up just forcing a concentration check or lose the spell, so it isn't even a guaranteed way of disrupting spellcasting.

[ad_hoc]

How is this blatant abuse? It seems like a pretty solid way for a mundane combatant to lock down an enemy spellcaster. It's also a tactic that used to be pretty commonly used in earlier editions, and was encouraged. Heck, it was pointed out as something that could be done in the 3rd/3.5e PHB. So, I don't see why you would have an issue with it. It ends up just forcing a concentration check or lose the spell, so it isn't even a guaranteed way of disrupting spellcasting.

So you're arguing that because it is powerful and was a rule in a different game that it isn't abuse?

[The_Jette]

So you're arguing that because it is powerful and was a rule in a different game that it isn't abuse?

No, I'm asking why it would be considered abuse? It's a tactical combat option that aids in fighting spellcasters.

[ad_hoc]

No, I'm asking why it would be considered abuse? It's a tactical combat option that aids in fighting spellcasters.

It's not an option.

[The_Jette]

It's not an option.

That's debatable, since setting the trigger as "that guy starts casting a spell" would make it so that as soon as the trigger (starts casting) has occurred, you get your action, interrupting them.

[RogueJK]

can't speak for fighter but why would a rogue care about this?

The OP is referring to a multiclass character, a Fighter 5/Rogue 4. Not a 5th Level Fighter character and a second 4th Level Rogue character.

[ad_hoc]

That's debatable, since setting the trigger as "that guy starts casting a spell" would make it so that as soon as the trigger (starts casting) has occurred, you get your action, interrupting them.

This is why it is abuse. The trigger is 'casting a spell' and Ready says it happens after the trigger. Trying to say 'the start of casting a spell' is an attempt at abuse.

Where does it say that taking damage interrupts a spell? It says that a caster can lose Concentration if they take damage but not all spells require Concentration.

Casting a spell only requires concentration if:

1) It is a concentration spell
2) The casting time is greater than 1 action or reaction
3) "holding (the spell's) energy" as part of the Ready action

There is nothing in the rules about a spell being interrupted during its casting. Only rules about a spell failing due to loss of Concentration. This is on purpose.

3e players just can't let go of 3e and that's why they find it so hard to understand the rules.

[sithlordnergal]

This is why it is abuse. The trigger is 'casting a spell' and Ready says it happens after the trigger. Trying to say 'the start of casting a spell' is an attempt at abuse.

Where does it say that taking damage interrupts a spell? It says that a caster can lose Concentration if they take damage but not all spells require Concentration.

Casting a spell only requires concentration if:

1) It is a concentration spell
2) The casting time is greater than 1 action or reaction
3) "holding (the spell's) energy" as part of the Ready action

There is nothing in the rules about a spell being interrupted during its casting. Only rules about a spell failing due to loss of Concentration. This is on purpose.

3e players just can't let go of 3e and that's why they find it so hard to understand the rules.

I half agree, half disagree:

Will it interrupt the spell and make the caster lose it? No, not at all. The only time that would happen is if someone chooses to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more since you do have to Concentrate while casting a spell, which is part of what makes Planar Binding really annoying to use, or if they're Readying a spell. Both things you already listed

On the other hand, I'd say that's a perfectly valid trigger. Reactions are things that happen between actions, and if you specify the trigger for a Readied action to be "When X starts casting a spell", then it should allow you to get an attack off before the spell takes effect. After all, in order to cast a spell, you have to start casting it, and there's a tiny space of time between starting to cast a spell and casting it, even if the spell is an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.

Heck, we have proof that a Reaction can be taken between the time of casting a spell and the spell's effect taking place. Counterspell is a Reaction that can only be used when you see a creature casting a spell. Counterspell doesn't happen after the spell takes effect, Counterspell happens when you see someone cast a spell but before the spell can take any effect.

[ad_hoc]

I half agree, half disagree:

Will it interrupt the spell and make the caster lose it? No, not at all. The only time that would happen is if someone chooses to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more since you do have to Concentrate while casting a spell, which is part of what makes Planar Binding really annoying to use, or if they're Readying a spell. Both things you already listed

On the other hand, I'd say that's a perfectly valid trigger. Reactions are things that happen between actions, and if you specify the trigger for a Readied action to be "When X starts casting a spell", then it should allow you to get an attack off before the spell takes effect. After all, in order to cast a spell, you have to start casting it, and there's a tiny space of time between starting to cast a spell and casting it, even if the spell is an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.

Heck, we have proof that a Reaction can be taken between the time of casting a spell and the spell's effect taking place. Counterspell is a Reaction that can only be used when you see a creature casting a spell. Counterspell doesn't happen after the spell takes effect, Counterspell happens when you see someone cast a spell but before the spell can take any effect.

Shield also occurs after you take damage and retroactively prevents that damage.

That doesn't mean that doing that is a general rule.

Opportunity Attacks are called out as specifically happening before the triggering event happens.

Ready states "when the trigger occurs, you can can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger."

When does 'start casting a spell' finish? What is the finishing of 'starting'? It's either when the spell is cast or it's nonsensical as 'starting' doesn't have a 'finish' other than what the start of has finished.

[sithlordnergal]

Shield also occurs after you take damage and retroactively prevents that damage.

That doesn't mean that doing that is a general rule.

Opportunity Attacks are called out as specifically happening before the triggering event happens.

Ready states "when the trigger occurs, you can can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger."

When does 'start casting a spell' finish? What is the finishing of 'starting'? It's either when the spell is cast or it's nonsensical as 'starting' doesn't have a 'finish' other than what the start of has finished.

If you really want to get into it, you stop "starting" something the moment after you go from not doing something to doing something. Starting something is simply a transition between those two phases. For example, I am currently typing while I make this post. Before I made this post I was not typing, I started typing, and now I am typing. I'm not still starting to type mid-typing, that finished. In the terms of spell casting, the timeline would be:

Not casting a spell

Start casting a spell

Casting a spell

Finish casting a spell

Spell takes effect

Its a very, very quick transition, especially since it generally only takes a few seconds to cast a spell, but that transition is there. Unless you want to try and argue that you never actually cast a spell, you're only ever starting to cast a spell or have cast a spell, and that there are no transitions.

[ad_hoc]

If you really want to get into it, you stop "starting" something the moment after you go from not doing something to doing something. Starting something is simply a transition between those two phases. For example, I am currently typing while I make this post. Before I made this post I was not typing, I started typing, and now I am typing. I'm not still starting to type mid-typing, that finished. In the terms of spell casting, the timeline would be:

Not casting a spell

Start casting a spell

Casting a spell

Finish casting a spell

Spell takes effect

Its a very, very quick transition, especially since it generally only takes a few seconds to cast a spell, but that transition is there. Unless you want to try and argue that you never actually cast a spell, you're only ever starting to cast a spell or have cast a spell, and that there are no transitions.

Okay, Ready action has to be in response to something that is perceptible.

If I haven't actually done something yet because I'm 'starting' to do it then it isn't perceptible.

The spell isn't finished before the effect. That is also nonsensical.

[sithlordnergal]

Okay, Ready action has to be in response to something that is perceptible.

If I haven't actually done something yet because I'm 'starting' to do it then it isn't perceptible.

The spell isn't finished before the effect. That is also nonsensical.

It does need to be perceptible, but I think you can perceive someone starting to cast a spell, most of the time at least. Counterspell's reaction happens when you see a creature casting a spell, it stands to reason that you can see a person starting to cast a spell. And once they are casting it, your readied action would go off because your trigger was them starting to cast.

I'd rule it similar to Counterspell actually, if you can't Counterspell it, you can't ready an action against it. If you can Counterspell it, then you can ready an action for it.

[Ryton]

Okay, Ready action has to be in response to something that is perceptible.

If I haven't actually done something yet because I'm 'starting' to do it then it isn't perceptible.

The spell isn't finished before the effect. That is also nonsensical.

How about "As soon as X individual starts performing the verbal or somatic components of a spell." Pretty easy to interrupt someone who has started to speak/perform hand gestures of nebulous complexity before they have finished speaking/gesturing, particularly since those are effectively the same things being reacted to by Counterspell.

[ad_hoc]

It does need to be perceptible, but I think you can perceive someone starting to cast a spell, most of the time at least. Counterspell's reaction happens when you see a creature casting a spell, it stands to reason that you can see a person starting to cast a spell. And once they are casting it, your readied action would go off because your trigger was them starting to cast.

I'd rule it similar to Counterspell actually, if you can't Counterspell it, you can't ready an action against it. If you can Counterspell it, then you can ready an action for it.

Can you ready to go prone in case you are hit by a ranged attack to avoid the attack?

You can do it with Shield so you should be able to do it with Ready right?

Counterspell is a somatic only, presumably one that is very simple and has specific rules that override the general rules.

A Ready action allows a character to move up to their speed. You're arguing that a character can move 30 feet in between the time they see someone casting and finishing casting and this is the same thing as making a gesture to Counterspell.

[MoiMagnus]

Actions are discrete events that start and end within the parameters set by the action.
[...]
I feel like if movement wasn't allowed between attacks not as many people would argue for bonus actions between attacks.

This is correct. However, since movement is allowed between attacks, one might consider it means that 5e moved away from the philosophy of earlier D&D editions, and that in 5e actions are not discrete events any more.

In particular, it is possible by RAW in 5e to have a reaction happen at the middle of an action (typical example is the Fighter strike the Goblin with his first attack, then move away and the Goblin makes an attack of opportunity against the Fighter as a reaction, then the Fighter strike the Orc with his second attack).



Though, personally unless it's an attempt at blatant abuse like the Ready 'at the beginning of casting' example I don't usually care if someone wants to use a bonus action during an action.

I agree that this is at least in a grey area RAW-wise, and likely against RAI (otherwise they would have talked about it in the Concentration paragraph).

Though that's not really a concern to me personally since we houseruled it as possible at our table, adding Concentration rules explicitly for when you suffer damage at the middle of spellcasting (whatever the casting time), houserules that include the fact that this temporary state of "concentrating a spell to cast it" does not count under the limit of maximum one concentrated spell at once.

(The intent being that Counterspell should not be the only way to disturb spellcasting, and that martial should have a way, admittedly less effective, to do so)

[sithlordnergal]

Can you ready to go prone in case you are hit by a ranged attack to avoid the attack?

You can do it with Shield so you should be able to do it with Ready right?

Counterspell is a somatic only, presumably one that is very simple and has specific rules that override the general rules.

A Ready action allows a character to move up to their speed. You're arguing that a character can move 30 feet in between the time they see someone casting and finishing casting and this is the same thing as making a gesture to Counterspell.

Yes, you can ready your action to go prone if someone is shooting an arrow at you. You'd want to word it in a way so your action goes off after they aim at you but before they fire the arrow, but yeah, you can.

And yes, I can say someone can run 30ft in 5e within that amount of time. This is a game where, with the right build, you can run 180ft in less time then it takes to hit someone four times with your fists. And where you can run 540ft in the same time it'd take to hit someone 4 times with your fist, all without using magic to do so. All you need is to be a Tabaxi Monk 15/Elk Totem Barbarian 5 with Mobile.

[ad_hoc]

Yes, you can ready your action to go prone if someone is shooting an arrow at you. You'd want to word it in a way so your action goes off after they aim at you but before they fire the arrow, but yeah, you can.


No, that is not what I wrote.

I asked if I can go prone after I was hit to negate the hit.

That's what the Shield spell does. If we're arguing for the reaction of Counterspell to be applied generally we should also apply Shield generally.



And yes, I can say someone can run 30ft in 5e within that amount of time. This is a game where, with the right build, you can run 180ft in less time then it takes to hit someone four times with your fists. And where you can run 540ft in the same time it'd take to hit someone 4 times with your fist, all without using magic to do so. All you need is to be a Tabaxi Monk 15/Elk Totem Barbarian 5 with Mobile.

As long as you're willing to go all the way down the absurdity hole you've dug for yourself. At least you're consistent.

[sithlordnergal]

No, that is not what I wrote.

I asked if I can go prone after I was hit to negate the hit.

That's what the Shield spell does. If we're arguing for the reaction of Counterspell to be applied generally we should also apply Shield generally.



As long as you're willing to go all the way down the absurdity hole you've dug for yourself. At least you're consistent.

Hmmm...I dunno...I mean, there is a slight difference between negating a hit and making an attack...Due to the way Shield is worded, you do have to use it when you're hit but before damage is dealt. It does feel like it could work to maybe grant disadvantage on the shot? I dunno...

And yes, I have built a character in AL that's purely made for speed. I even made sure to get the Eagle Whistle and Boots of Speed, and I have a Potion of Speed. So he can go ridiculously fast. There's no point to it, there's no benefit to having a 1000+ foot movement speed, but that doesn't matter. The rules allow it, so I did it because I could. Even named my Tabaxi Barry.

EDIT: I did my math wrong on my last post. With magic via Longstrider, Barry has a base movement speed of 100ft. Boots of Speed, Tabaxi Speed, Potion of Speed, and Eagle Whistle gives him a speed of 400ft or 1600ft, depending on how the DM lets speed multipliers stack. Follow that up with Dash, Bonus Action Dash, and Haste Dash from the Potion, and he's moving 1,600 feet to 6,400 feet in a round. He goes from 0 to 727.5 MPH in about a second, for 6 seconds >=D

[MThurston]

can't speak for fighter but why would a rogue care about this?

If you can't hide its a way to get your sneak attack damage.

If you are a fighter and rogue with two attacks you could fire once at normal and then use steady aim to get your second shot advantage with sneak attack.

Which is another thing to look at with 2 attacks.

[Keravath]

I'd prefer to just make Steady Aim cost all of your movement that round.

That makes a lot more sense to me than your Bonus Action. Locking content behind a BA results in adding limitations to player options as the game expands, since it's a resource you can't ever get more than one back per turn. You see the same problem with the Ranger, who's unable to use his spells, dual-wielding, and some subclass features in the same build.

Steady aim already costs all of a character's movement. The bonus action is in addition to the movement cost and is to prevent the rogue from making use of cunning action and all the other options possible for their bonus action (like hide). Makes sense to me.

"STEADY AIM
3rd-level rogue feature
As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn."

Also, in the original example, if a character is hidden, if they want to make an attack and use steady aim in the same turn then they can NOT move. So if they are hiding behind a wall and want to pop out to shoot - they can't use steady aim since it usually costs movement to move from behind an obstacle to a point where they can see their target.

Anyway, the point of steady aim is to give a ranged rogue a mechanism to enable sneak attack against targets without an opponent adjacent and to give the rogue advantage on the attack roll. Rogue balance is based on having sneak attack available on most rounds of combat and this ability is just an attempt to ensure this happens.

[MThurston]

Can we get back on track here?

You can ready an action to attack someone casting a spell.

Hitting them doesn't cancel the spell but if they have a concentration spell up they would make a check. If they casted a concentration spell it would still go off but if they failed their check it would go away.

If that spell did damage then it would be taken. If it caused an effect like save or be knocked prone that save would have to be made by the target. If it was a charm spell then it would be broken by the failed check.

Now can anyone tell me if you can take second attack after a bonus action?

I know you can attack, then move and attack again. But is there a difference between moving after an attack and taking a bonus action?

[MThurston]

Steady aim already costs all of a character's movement. The bonus action is in addition to the movement cost and is to prevent the rogue from making use of cunning action and all the other options possible for their bonus action (like hide). Makes sense to me.

"STEADY AIM
3rd-level rogue feature
As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn."

Also, in the original example, if a character is hidden, if they want to make an attack and use steady aim in the same turn then they can NOT move. So if they are hiding behind a wall and want to pop out to shoot - they can't use steady aim since it usually costs movement to move from behind an obstacle to a point where they can see their target.

Anyway, the point of steady aim is to give a ranged rogue a mechanism to enable sneak attack against targets without an opponent adjacent and to give the rogue advantage on the attack roll. Rogue balance is based on having sneak attack available on most rounds of combat and this ability is just an attempt to ensure this happens.

Using a half wall as a hiding spot would allow you to hide, shoot and steady aim. You moved 0 feet. Then you would have half cover.

[Rukelnikov]

No, that is not what I wrote.

I asked if I can go prone after I was hit to negate the hit.

That's what the Shield spell does. If we're arguing for the reaction of Counterspell to be applied generally we should also apply Shield generally.



As long as you're willing to go all the way down the absurdity hole you've dug for yourself. At least you're consistent.

You can choose an action and a trigger, you don't get to choose the effect of such action.

You can ready to go prone if you are hit, since its a perceptible circumstance, that won't negate the damage.

Can't you ready "If he starts talking I hit him"? by your reading you either can't do that or have to wait until said person stopped talking. Neither option makes sense narratively.

[MThurston]

You can choose an action and a trigger, you don't get to choose the effect of such action.

You can ready to go prone if you are hit, since its a perceptible circumstance, that won't negate the damage.

Can't you ready "If he starts talking I hit him"? by your reading you either can't do that or have to wait until said person stopped talking. Neither option makes sense narratively.

{scrubbed}

Still looking if you can bonus action and still use your fighters second attack.

[Keravath]

Can we get back on track here?

You can ready an action to attack someone casting a spell.

Hitting them doesn't cancel the spell but if they have a concentration spell up they would make a check. If they casted a concentration spell it would still go off but if they failed their check it would go away.

If that spell did damage then it would be taken. If it caused an effect like save or be knocked prone that save would have to be made by the target. If it was a charm spell then it would be broken by the failed check.

Now can anyone tell me if you can take second attack after a bonus action?

I know you can attack, then move and attack again. But is there a difference between moving after an attack and taking a bonus action?

The rules for bonus actions state:

"BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take. You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

You can take a bonus action at any time during your turn as long as the conditions for using it have been met.

Some folks think of all actions as nuclear - meaning you can't do other things while you are taking an action. As far as I know, the rules in 5e never state this anywhere. In addition, there are examples like using counterspell as a reaction WHILE you are casting another spell using your action where characters can specifically use a reaction while taking an action.

With the example of reactions and lack of explicit rules making actions nuclear - 5e rules only say what they say - there is no reason why a character can not use a bonus action between the attacks granted by the attack action. (at least that is how I play it).


---

As an example, the fighter/rogue could make an attack then move, use their bonus action to dash using cunning action allowing for additional movement, then make their second attack. Alternatively, a fighter rogue could attack, move, bonus action hide, move, attack with advantage if they succeeded on the stealth check and are still hidden when they make the attack ... if they have enough movement to get to an appropriate place to hide.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Things can only happen between the start and end of actions if explicitly stated that they can do so. (Ready action occurs after the trigger and cannot be 'when someone starts casting a spell' it is always 'after someone casts a spell').

As Keravath pointed out the rules for Bonus Actions actually state the exact opposite of this:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

As to your position on Readying an Action:
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.

"I do 'X' when creature 'Z' starts to do 'Y'"....I shoot the Hobgoblin Devastator when the Devastator starts to cast a spell.

As long as the start of the spell casting is perceptible, this seems to me, to be a valid trigger. One can conceive of a "End of a Beginning".

The Ready Action, I presume, can Interrupt another creature's action.
Your particular interpretation, ad_hoc, doesn't allow for that to happen, with a Readied Action.

Your ruling further empowers Counterspell, since Counterspell now becomes the only way to stop a spell from being cast.

[ad_hoc]

As Keravath pointed out the rules for Bonus Actions actually state the exact opposite of this:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

As to your position on Readying an Action:
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.

"I do 'X' when creature 'Z' starts to do 'Y'"....I shoot the Hobgoblin Devastator when the Devastator starts to cast a spell.

As long as the start of the spell casting is perceptible, this seems to me, to be a valid trigger. One can conceive of a "End of a Beginning".

The Ready Action, I presume, can Interrupt another creature's action.
Your particular interpretation, ad_hoc, doesn't allow for that to happen, with a Readied Action.

Your ruling further empowers Counterspell, since Counterspell now becomes the only way to stop a spell from being cast.

Again, the rule for Ready Action is that it happens after the trigger.

Adding the words 'at the start of' each trigger to bypass that rule is an attempt at abuse.

That would get serious side eye from me if someone were to try it at an actual game I was playing.

[Rukelnikov]

Again, the rule for Ready Action is that it happens after the trigger.

Adding the words 'at the start of' each trigger to bypass that rule is an attempt at abuse.

That would get serious side eye from me if someone were to try it at an actual game I was playing.

So you cant ready "If X starts talking I hit him"?

[The_Jette]

This is why it is abuse. The trigger is 'casting a spell' and Ready says it happens after the trigger. Trying to say 'the start of casting a spell' is an attempt at abuse.

Where does it say that taking damage interrupts a spell? It says that a caster can lose Concentration if they take damage but not all spells require Concentration.

Casting a spell only requires concentration if:

1) It is a concentration spell
2) The casting time is greater than 1 action or reaction
3) "holding (the spell's) energy" as part of the Ready action

There is nothing in the rules about a spell being interrupted during its casting. Only rules about a spell failing due to loss of Concentration. This is on purpose.

3e players just can't let go of 3e and that's why they find it so hard to understand the rules.

If you ready a spell, and take damage before its trigger goes off, you have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell. This indicates that taking damage in the middle of casting a spell (since you have started but haven't finished casting it) causes you to lose the spell. It isn't abuse. It's using the rules as intended, as they've always been. But, this is not going to get us anywhere, as you read the ability to ready an action to have only specific triggers, where I read those examples given as only examples and not limitations.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you ready a spell, and take damage before its trigger goes off, you have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell. This indicates that taking damage in the middle of casting a spell (since you have started but haven't finished casting it) causes you to lose the spell. It isn't abuse. It's using the rules as intended, as they've always been.

The rules for readied action explicitly state that you completed casting the spell ("cast it normal") and are concentrating to hold it.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect.


You are saying that you must concentrate on a spell for the action needed to cast it (hence the concentration check). 5e is explicit that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time; therefore, by your interpretation, you can never cast a spell while concentrating on another spell.



That said, ad_hoc's interpretations (that 'actions are atomic', and that 'start casting' is not an allowable trigger) are also not RAW.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Adding the words 'at the start of' each trigger to bypass that rule is an attempt at abuse.

Ad_hoc you don't know for certain what is in other people's heart or mind, unless you have Heartsense.🃏

My reading of the rule differs from yours. A person simply acting in accordance to the knowledge they have at the moment, isn't intending abuse, or evincing malice, even if they are in error.

In your interpretation of the Ready Action, you have added an extra clause, that a Trigger must be an Action, such as one finds on page 192 of the PHB.

The only requirement the PHB states is the trigger must be perceivable:

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it.....When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.

You have seemingly added an extra hoop, that is not present in the text itself.


That would get serious side eye from me if someone were to try it at an actual game I was playing.

I might disagree with your interpretation of one part of how the Ready Action works, but if you were DM-ing and made your preference known of how you run it; I would respect that as a player.

A minor quibble over how the Ready Action works is not a sufficient reason to miss out on a fun game.

[Khrysaes]

I kind of miss the UA Revived rogue's Bolts from the grave feature. Immediately after using cunning action (stead aim), make a ranged spell attack against a creature within 30ft of you if you haven't used sneak attack yet this turn. Dexterity based spell attack, deals necrotic damage equal to sneak attack and uses your sneak attack for the turn.

Essentilly, every time you use steady aim, make a ranged spell attack with advantage to use sneak attack. It was a nice combo..

That said, I would argue that shadow monk 6 would be better than fighter 5. Shadow step takes a bonus action, moves one 60ft AND doesn't prevent the user from moving before/after, and grants advantage. There is the downside of it being melee attacks only, and the advantage being restricted to use in dim light or darkness conditions.

[Peelee]

I kind of miss the UA Revived rogue's Bolts from the grave feature. Immediately after using cunning action (stead aim), make a ranged spell attack against a creature within 30ft of you if you haven't used sneak attack yet this turn. Dexterity based spell attack, deals necrotic damage equal to sneak attack and uses your sneak attack for the turn.

Essentilly, every time you use steady aim, make a ranged spell attack with advantage to use sneak attack. It was a nice combo..


That's the character I'm playing in my current campaign! It is a delightful ability - my main attack missed/I didn't get to use SA for whatever reason? Here's a second attack for my SA damage anyway!